1986 PLP 1119 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 37‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑

Condonation of delay‑‑Ground that file was lost by peon due to accident‑‑Story of accident not convincing‑‑Delay appearing to be due to gross negligence‑‑ Condonation refused and appeal dismissed as time‑barred. Saifullah Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1986. The decision dated 3‑11‑1985, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2 Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the refund of Rs. 2,830 recovered from him by instalments of Rs.100 per month was accepted.

2. An objection has been raised by the learned representative of the respondent that the appeal is time‑barred. This fact is admitted and the appellant has applied for condonation of delay. The ground is that file of the case had fallen down in the way due to an accident met by the peon due to load‑shedding and was traced out only few days before the lodging of the appeal. The affidavit filed with the application for condonation of delay is not of the peon who is alleged to have met with the accident, nor even his name and particulars have been disclosed. The affidavit is of the counsel. It is thus manifest that whatever is said in the affidavit is hearsay evidence. No reason has been given for not filing the affidavit of the peon. The alleged accident was not an ordinary incident since it resulted in the alleged loss of the documents necessary for the lodging of the appeal but it is not urged in the application or the affidavit that any F.I.R. was lodged about the alleged accident and the loss of record. During arguments learned counsel has said that the accident had taken place on Ferozepur Road. It has been seen that at every time there is a line of traffic consisting of cars, buses, wagons and taxis and there is immense of light of said vehicles. So load shading could not be cause of the alleged accident. It is not said that the peon, who was carrying the file on his bicycle, had received serious injuries and thus, did not remove his bicycle from the place of accident. If he had after the accident lifted the bicycle, he could have lifted the file as well which may have fallen near about the place of accident. This is not the contention that the said peon had become senseless and taken to the hospital, nor any admission or discharge certificate or other medical certificate of injuries has been produced. So, even if it be believed that some kind of accident had taken place, the file could not have been lost. It could have been lifted by the said peon along with the bicycle after the accident. It appears that due to the gross negligence of same quarters, the appeal was not lodged in time and the story of accident is nothing but a fiction and concoction, which I am not prepared to believe. So, no! ground for condonation of delay has been made out.

3. As a result, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred. A. E.??? Appeal dismissed.